KUPPAN ALIAS GOPAL Vs. KUPPUSAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 23.8.1993 passed in O.S.No.173 of 1985, which is a suit for partition, by the Subordinate Judge, Sankari. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their ligitative status before the trial Court.

(2.) THE portrayal and parodying of the case of the plaintiffs, pithily and precisely, as stood exposited from the plaint, could be as under: (a) D1-Pachayanna Gounder and his wife Kuppayee gave birth to D2-their son, D5, D6, D7 and D8-their daughters. D4 is the son of D2. After the death of the said Kuppayee, D1 married D3, the younger sister of the deceased Kuppayee and during the wed lock, they gave birth to the plaintiffs. (b) THE suit 'A' schedule property happened to be the ancestral property of D1, who got it in the partition as per Ex.A1-the partition deed dated 27.2.1950, which emerged between D1 and his brother Periyanna Gounder. (c) From out of the income generated from the 'A' scheduled property D1 purchased the 'B' Scheduled property. Accordingly, plaintiffs 1 and 2 and D1 and D2 are each entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties. (d) 'C' scheduled movable properties are also belonged to the joint family and accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share each. (e) D1 developed mental illness even 20 years anterior to the filing of the suit and ever since that time, he was not capable of understanding things properly. Taking undue advance of D1's mental illness, D2 got executed some fictitious deeds from him, which are void ones. (f) Nine years before the filing of the suit, D1 tortured and drove away D3 from the matrimonial home. D2, acting as svengali over D1, got executed from him-the registered settlement deed in favour of D4, concerning the suit properties. By using the same influence D2 stage-managed as though D1 created a mortgage in favour of Co-operative Land Market Bank, Omalur in respect of the suit properties, even though the suit properties were fetching an annual income of Rs.5000/-, (g) the plaintiffs' request for amicable partition ended in a fiasco, whereupon the suit was filed for partition.

(3.) D1 filed additional written statement, which was adopted by D2 and D4, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:- D1 helped the plaintiffs to get themselves admitted in school, as their guardian and not as their father.